Employer Fails in Consultation, Awarded Protective Payment
📌 In brief
An employer was ordered to pay a protective award after failing to consult employees properly before dismissing them as redundant. The Employment Judge ruled that the company must follow strict rules for collective consultation, especially when multiple jobs are at risk.
⚖️ Legal holding
An employer must consult employees when making redundancies affecting more than 20 workers within 90 days, failing which a protective award is granted.
📖 What the law says
An employer must consult with appropriate employee representatives if they plan to make redundancies affecting 20 or more employees at one location within 90 days. Consultation should start early, with at least 30 days notice required unless more than 100 redundancies are planned, in which case at least 45 days notice is needed.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant was awarded a protective award due to the respondent's failure to comply with collective consultation requirements.
📜 Headnote Official document
The claimant was awarded a protective award after the respondent failed to comply with collective consultation requirements under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 when making redundancies affecting more than 20 workers within 90 days.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
Case Number: 1808087/2025 (See attached schedule)
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: [redacted]
Respondent: [redacted]
Leeds (By Video) On:
13th May 2026
Before:
Employment Judge S Edwards
Representation
Claimants:
[redacted]
Mr [NAME] – In Person
No attendance on behalf of [APPELLANT] & 18 [APPELLANT] Respondent: [redacted] Secretary of State for Business and Trade: Representations provided on form ET3 (not a party)
The respondent having failed to present a response to the claim, pursuant to Rule 22 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 the Tribunal issues the following:
JUDGMENT
1. The claimants are entitled to bring these claims because the complaint concerns a failure by the respondent relating to the election of employee representatives, and the claimants were employees dismissed as redundant. There was no recognised trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining.
2. The respondent failed to comply with the requirements of section 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
3. The respondent dismissed as redundant more than 20 employees at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less.
4. It is declared that the claim for a protective award is well-founded.
5. A protective award is made in respect of the claimant and [APPELLANT] as set out in the attached schedule.
6. The claimants were employed at [NAME], [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] and were all dismissed on 12th September
2025.
7. The protected period begins on 12th September 2025 and is for a period of 90 days, it being just and equitable to make the maximum award because of the complete failure to comply with the statutory requirements for collective consultation.
8. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 apply.
Employment Judge Edwards
13th May 2026
Schedule
Case Number Claimant Name 1808087/2025 [NAME] [APPELLANT] 1808088/2025 Mr [APPELLANT] [NAME] 1808089/2025 Ms [APPELLANT] [NAME] 1808090/2025 Mr [NAME] 1808091/2025 Mr [NAME] 1808092/2025 Mr [NAME] 1808093/2025 Ms [NAME] 1808094/2025 Mr [NAME] 1808095/2025 Mr [NAME] 1808096/2025 Mr [NAME] 1808097/2025 Mr [NAME] 1808098/2025 Mr [NAME] 1808099/2025 Mr [NAME] 1808100/2025 Ms [NAME] 1808101/2025 Mr [NAME] 1808102/2025 Mr [NAME] 1808103/2025 Ms [NAME] 1808104/2025 Mr [NAME] 1808105/2025 Mr [NAME] 1808437/2025 Mr [NAME] 1808438/2025 Mr [NAME]
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Awards Protective Period for Redundancy Consultation Fa…
- Employment Tribunal Employer Fails in Redundancy Process, Entitling Workers to Protective Award
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rules Wrongful Dismissal Due to Unpaid Notice Pay
- Employment Tribunal Manchester ET Rules: Employer Must Pay Unpaid Wages and Redundancy
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Upholds Disabled Worker's Discrimination Claims Against…
- Employment Tribunal Employer Fails Redundancy Consultation, Faces Protective Award
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rules Employer Must Pay Unlawful Wages Deduction
- Employment Tribunal Unauthorised Wage Deductions: Claimant Wins Compensation at Employment Trib…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Awards Protective Award for Collective Consultation Bre…
- Employment Tribunal Veterinary Surgeon Wins Constructive Dismissal Case at Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Worker Wins Unlawful Deductions and Holiday Pay Case at Employment Tribunal
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The employer failed to consult employees before making redundancies affecting more than 20 workers within 90 days.
- The employer did not comply with the collective consultation requirements set out in section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 when proposing dismissals.
- An employer must ensure proper notice is given before terminating employment, or pay equivalent wages as required by law.
- Employers must compensate employees for unauthorised wage deductions and breaches of contract regarding notice pay.
- The employer breached the implied term of trust and confidence with the employee.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The employer was ordered to pay a protective award due to failing to consult employees properly before making redundancies.
Who was involved?
An employer and several workers who were dismissed as redundant without proper consultation.
How did the court decide, and why?
The judge ruled in favour of the claimants because the employer failed to follow legal requirements for collective consultation before making mass redundancies.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and Employment Rights Act 1996 s.98.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The employer's failure to consult employees before making redundancies affected more than 20 workers within a short period.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
For the claimants, as they were awarded a protective award.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
If an employer dismisses multiple employees without proper consultation, affected workers may be entitled to a protective award.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The lack of evidence showing compliance with collective consultation requirements was crucial.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, but only if there are grounds for appeal under the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.